Warmer Oceans linked to Stronger Hurricanes 374
linguizic writes "According to Scientific American, global warming could be creating stronger hurricanes: 'Since the 1970s, ocean surface temperatures around the globe have been on the rise--from one half to one degree Fahrenheit, depending on the region. Last summer, two studies linked this temperature rise to stronger and more frequent hurricanes. Skeptics called other factors into account, such as natural variability, but a new statistical analysis shows that only this sea surface temperature increase explains this trend.'"
This can't be true (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This can't be true (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This can't be true (Score:2, Funny)
Re:This can't be true (Score:5, Interesting)
The question is what to do about it. We can:
(1) Totally ignore it.
(2) Put our entire economy on hold.
Or anything in between. To determine what we should do requires a lot more information than we actually have. What's the extent of the damage? How much of that damage will be prevented if we do something now? How much of our economy will be affected by doing something?
Re:This can't be true (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This can't be true (Score:5, Insightful)
If I had a cent to invest, I'd be looking for the intersection for emerging consumer economies (that is, formerly 3rd world countries with rapidly growing middle classes) and alternative energy sources, particularly those that will survive increased international pressure as evidence for climate change caused by human carbon emissions masses (the evidence is already pretty rock solid, but as more amasses, fewer and fewer in the international community will be able to ignore it.) So look for zero carbon (wind looks to be the most promising right now) and carbon-neutral (biofuels, you only release as much carbon as what you grew absorbed in its lifetime - as opposed to burning carbon you dig out of the ground) power solutions in the former 3rd world. Invest across a handful of technologies and markets, and you're pretty sure to do well.
Put our economy on hold? WTF? Things are changing. Economies are always in states of flux. Don't deny science because it might be inconvenient to your pocketbook; reorient your pocketbook to the current situation.
Um. . .Duh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, well, for some people [whitehouse.gov] it was. :)
Re:Um. . .Duh? (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course, it's all irrelevent if you're already convinced that this whole global warming thing is just a fantasy by tree-huggers and Bush-haters (no pun intended).
Re:Um. . .Duh? (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact of Global Warming isn't really in question. The place is warming up. The real question is why? There are people who take a warming trend to be evidence of human activity etc. There are others who question that. The rise in temperature really is not in doubt.
There is extremely good evidence that the process is substantially if not entirely natural. I know that some will argue against this but there are several very good indicators. The sun has gotten brighter and in particularly it has also
Re:Um. . .Duh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Um. . .Duh? (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know - maybe because they are ignoring the evidence NASA has that global warming is also occuring on Mars, which doesn't have any SUVs to speak of, or coal-powered electrical plants, or any of those other nasty human-caused things?
Re:Um. . .Duh? (Score:3, Funny)
You think Mars is bad, check out the greenhouse problems they have on Venus...
Re:Um. . .Duh? (Score:5, Informative)
And in practice there is a lot more damning evidence that a significant portion of the warming is anthropogenic. Here's a rief summary of some of the most quickly explained information:
Atmospheric carbox dioxide correlates very well with temperature. We know this by many methods, but the one with the longest historical record is that of ice-cores, which provide data on historical CO2 levels and historical temperature going back 650,000 years. Over that time span there is an extremely close correlation of atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature.
More recently there is, again, very good correlation between the recent rapid (and accelerating) rise in temperature and recent rises in the levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. By recent I mean the last 150 years or so.
Correlation, of course, does not prove causation. However we know from completely independent study that, based on its absorption spectra, atmospheric carbon dioxide will tend to trap heat. We therefore not only have very powerful correlations, we also have very good reasons to expect and anticipcate causation.
Further studies of the change in ratio of different carbon isotopes in atmospheric carbon dioxide shows that the recent (last 150 years) spike in carbon dioxide is almost entirely caused by humans.
Based on all of that we would certainly expect human carbox dioxide emissions to be a factor in recent global temperature increases. When models attempting to predict the rise based on historical data are run the expected warming trend is remarkably well accounted for.
The sun has gotten brighter and in particularly it has also been much more electrically active in the last few years.
Solar variation gets brought up often, and certainly there is solar variation and we can expect it to have some impact on global temperatures. The observed solar variation alone is, however, not sufficient to properly account for the observed warming. The IPCC claims that around 30% of the observed warming can be accounted for by solar variation, but the remaining warming is almost entirely accounted for by human factors, particularly human CO2 (and other greenhouse gas) emissions. So yes, solar variation most certainly matters. To the best of our knowledge however solar variation is not the primary factor - anthropogenic factors are.
Jedidiah.
Re:Um. . .Duh? (Score:3, Interesting)
The 500k year Vostok ice core data: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm [ornl.gov] shows CO2 either in phase or lagging temperature by up to 1000 years, over four temperature oscillations. This means the CO2 does not drive temperature, but that temperature drives CO2
Re:Um. . .Duh? (Score:3, Informative)
Warming due to CO2 will also lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere in a positive feedback.
3) I have no idea where you are getting your numbers. Please cite some sources? Again, realclimate [realclimate.org] has reprinted a figure showing 6 different temperature reconstructions of the past 1000 years. None of them have medieval warm periods that are even as warm as today's
Re:Um. . .Duh? (Score:2)
And what is the evidence that reducing greenhouse gases will trash the economy? Keeping the satus quo means that the US economy will expand based on extensive factors (more energy consumption, more polution, more waste) instead of based on intensive factors (higher productivity, closed cycle manufacturing, less energy consumption, higher efficiency). There wa
Re:Um. . .Duh? (Score:3, Insightful)
The current level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is completely unprecedented in the last 650,000 years - the current spike is twice as large as any previous spike in the last 650,000 years and occurs over a shorter time frame than any previous significant spike. According to historical ice-core records the recent spike really is huge, and really is unprecedent
Re:Um. . .Duh? (Score:4, Informative)
Simple math shows that we are over 75%, rather than "half way up" and so we also should be 75%+ up on the storms.
I don't know exactly how you did your math - perhaps a little too "simply", but my rough calculations run like this:
Peaks are at 1950 and 2025 with 75 years between the peaks. Assuming the cycle is roughly symmetric the trough - low point of the cycle - should occur half way between in 1987. Half way up the next peak is half way between 1987 (the trough) and 2025 (the next peak). That works out to be
We are 75% of the way through the cycle, but a cycle has troughs as well as peaks.
Jedidiah.
Re:Um. . .Duh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Amazing that you say this. Historically, change actually helps the economy, not destroys. Consider that when we introduced automobiles followed by roads, we destroyed the horse industry. But how many jobs have been created by automotive industry? Far more than horses would have. Even now, if we were to convert away from Oil and Coal, we would have to move to
Re:Um. . .Duh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Science, not just climate science, is overall a very conservative discipline. For the majority of the scientific community to have arrived at the conclusion that our planet is warming related to anthropogenic activity is not simply because a couple of scientists or even hundreds or thousands of scientists have said so. It is because an overwhelming amount of evidence from every corner of the globe has led them to this conclusion.
Yes, there are still some climate scientists, by far a small minority, that still claim that either global warming is not occurring, or if so, it is not related to human activity. That's ok, that's part of the scientific process, and everybody has a different understanding of reasonable doubt. But as evidence continues to pour in day after day from around the globe, I think eventually even that small majority will have a change of opinion.
Re:Um. . .Duh? (Score:2, Informative)
Pardon? Solar flares? What's this "match" you're talking about? I can understand how human-generated carbon dioxide can trap heat in the atmosphere -- we've established the greenhouse effect. I can also understand how warmer water makes more inten
Hollywood knows. (Score:2)
Re:Hollywood knows. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Um. . .Duh? (Score:2, Insightful)
None of that was unknown, no, but they're not logically connected by necessity. Global warming is an overall average temperature increase, and is quite capable of lowering average temperatures in some locations. Thus the jump from "global warming" to "zOMG HU
Re:Um. . .Duh? (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that there have been measured increases in ocean temperatures. Hurricanes require energy to keep going (from a site about El Nino, about 81 degrees F). Warmer oceans mean more energy. It's not much of a leap to link stronger hurricanes with warmer oceans.
Re:Um. . .Duh? (Score:2)
Well, yes. "Warm oceans -> hurricanes" is well established. I'm saying "global warming -> warm oceans" isn't necessarily accurate, especially since a significant increase in hurricane activity would probably require an ocean tempera
Re:Um. . .Duh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Um. . .Duh? (Score:3, Insightful)
A sea surface temperature increase of even a half-degree represents an enormous enormous amount of additional energy feeding into our planetary weather systems.
It doesn't strike me as unlikely at all.
~X~
Known vs. known to idiots (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Known vs. known to idiots (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Um. . .Duh? (Score:2)
I don't understand... (Score:2, Funny)
What now? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What now? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What now? (Score:2)
Re:What now? (Score:2)
That wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that there are more people to kill, now, would it? Or a shift in population density?
Re:What now? (Score:2)
Maybe this one? [nasa.gov]
So it was not so wise to invest in Florida :) (Score:2, Insightful)
This isn't Global Warming (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=031606F [tcsdaily.com]
Re:This isn't Global Warming (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This isn't Global Warming (Score:3, Interesting)
The decadal periods are bookended by monster hurricane cycles. See the 1900 Galveston hurricane (which destroyed Galve
Hmm. Cautious I am. (Score:2, Insightful)
if i'm reading this right .. natural cycle my ass (Score:3, Insightful)
as i'm reading this they are saying the storms now are 50% worse than the storms in 1950 (which should have been the high point of storm activity based on natural cycle)... and that the natural cycle would point to natural warming for next 20~years........
I'm honestly starting to wonder if humanity even has time left to get our stuff together or if we've already taken things to far, with our climate impacting activities.
I was reading the other day about artic wild life...seals
human caused global warming is close enough to completely proved for me.
Re:if i'm reading this right .. natural cycle my a (Score:2)
So when are yu going to get rid of your car and use a bicycle?
Another day, another disaster (Score:5, Funny)
doesn't make sense (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:doesn't make sense (Score:3, Interesting)
To compound the problem of melting ice caps is that the ice caps tend to reflect a lot of sunlight back into space. Ocean water does this less. This means that more sunlight/energy stays in the Earth system - which contributes at least a little to the
floridians knew this already (Score:2)
Global warming is just a myth (Score:2, Insightful)
Then you can bet someone will declare, it is global warming
The view from the Gulf (LA) (Score:4, Insightful)
Like I'm not the millionth person to say so... (Score:2)
A meteorologist replies (Score:5, Informative)
Most operational meteorologists I know feel human induced global warming is a bad theory, based on really bad modeling. The equations are incomplete as is the data set. Maybe we're worried because we use numeric weather prediction models [noaa.gov] on a daily basis and understand we can't always get the temperature right to within 2-3 degree over 24 hours, much less 24 years!
Academicians and theorists seem to support the idea in great numbers. These are people who haven't had to answer for a bad forecast in the supermarket.
Surely, human induced global warming is a political argument. Ask yourself, why have I never heard even one positive influence from global warming? In science, you should hear the good and the bad. In this argument, it's only the bad that gets publicized. If everyone in the Northern Plains, Northern Europe, New England, Canada and other cold weather climates get a longer growing season with lower winter heating costs, shouldn't that be weighed against tidal rises on Vanuatu?
Recently, after Katrina and the others, there has been a chorus trying to connect more hurricanes with global warming. Here's what Dr. William Gray says (he's the guy you hear quoted every year with seasonal hurricane predictions):
You can read more of Dr. Gray's thoughts in this excellent paper "Global Warming and Hurricanes." [confex.com]
I have posted this late. Positive modding to make it more visible would be appreciated.
Re:A meteorologist replies (Score:3, Informative)
This is not about determining whether it will snow or rain in Peoria on Dec. 11, 2006.
Some links that may interest you:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1 517946,00.html [guardian.co.uk]
http://www.begbroke.ox.ac.uk/climatebasics/?style= plain [ox.ac.uk]
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=270 [realclimate.org]
The data don't support your claim (Score:2, Insightful)
Long term statistics [noaa.gov] suggest that the number of hurrican strikes is at a cyclic low. Kyotoists tend to use sensational single incidents to bolster their hysterical, political claims. Kyoto was rejected because it is an economic Jonestown that will do nothing to affect global warming.
Re:The data don't support your claim (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The data don't support your claim (Score:2)
The topic at hand is hurricanes (Score:2)
The topic at hand is hurricanes, Atlantic tropical cyclones, and their frequency through time. If I am not giving equal time to whatever harmful weather strikes your eurotrash location, I do apologize.
Re:Kyoto (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Kyoto (Score:2, Insightful)
That's oil-company FUD. First: While reducing CO2 emission may not do anything in the next five years, it will do something for long term climate change. CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas because of its quantity. Reducing it will have an effect, just not immediately.
Second: Russia are meeting their requirements. Those are the only ones I know of, but they're also the only ones I've read about.
Re:Kyoto (Score:3, Informative)
Yes - thanks to the watering down the US demanded.
Re:Kyoto (Score:2)
Or could it be that it's not as bad as you're making it out to be, and actually is worthwhile?
Re:Kyoto (Score:3, Insightful)
Here are three ways that, assuming your assertions are true, it still helps:
1. Having to trade emission output with other nations is a negative force (you have to negotiate, you may even have to pay), and therefore will want to avoid it. At some point, it will be more cost-effective to actually cut emissions.
2. Agreeing to it requires a nation to take stock of its contribution to global pollution. This may highlight problem
Re:Kyoto (Score:3, Insightful)
I've pointed out ways it will help, and you've agreed that they would. You still don't think it's worth it, and really, I don't care if you think it's worth it or not. That's your own decision to make. I was only pointing out your premise was demonstrably wrong.
You can say the Kyoto Protocol doesn't do enough, or that it does
Re:Kyoto (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think you get it. Despite right-winger's appearent hatred of Darwin's ideas, they actually embrace dog-eat-dog everyman-for-himself view of things. Their belief is that if nations/people cannot handle and adapt to global warming, it is their own problem and that they "deserve" to parish. This fits nicely into their no-welfare, no gov'mt help, 3rd-world Phd wages and visas, reward the wealthy,
Re:Kyoto (Score:2, Insightful)
I would say "I don't think you get it" but you already used up that line.
No, I don't fully embrace one 'side' or the other. I think, however, that polarizing dogmatists like you make the discussion worse.
Re:Kyoto (Score:2)
Re:Kyoto (Score:2)
Re:Kyoto (Score:2)
Re:Kyoto (Score:3, Funny)
"Still"? He wasn't in charge during the first one
Hopefully, we won't (Score:2)
It's a stupid treaty, whose primary beneficiary would be the suits on the carbon exchanges.
Re:Kyoto (Score:2)
Re:Kyoto (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Kyoto (Score:2)
An "unrestrained economy" is exactly what scares the left.
I'm sure that you have plenty of success stories to tell about "restrained economies".
Here are a few - North Korea, Cuba, The Soviet Union, China
btw - The Soviet Union and China are some of the biggest polluters ever!
Jam that in you bong and smoke it - hippie!
Re:Kyoto (Score:2)
Re:Wouldn't it be nice? (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, is climate change not a political issue? Should we avoid political discussions whenever an issue is "important"? Seems like a strange idea to me.
I think what you mean to say is that we should avoid political discussions that consist of braindead mudslinging (e.g. "Everyone who drives a car is a guilty of ecological genocide!", "If you criticize car culture, you're with the terrorists", etc., etc.).
Re:Wouldn't it be nice? (Score:2)
Science and politics are both shaped by a individual's worldview. The problem with your statement isn't so much that you've devalued politics, it's that you've overvalued science.
Re:Wouldn't it be nice? (Score:5, Insightful)
Muddling the population's grasp of the facts is not hard, as there is too much going on for us all to be an expert on everything. It nevertheless is cheating. There is much organized cheating going on, intended to confuse the population. The effects of this cheating are visible in any online conversation where science impinges on policy, and slashdot is hardly immune.
Whether or not human activity is substantially changing climate, for instance, is not a speculative matter. Its truth or falsehood is established science. Nevertheless there is organized activity to convince you of the plausibility of impossible propositions.
Splitting the difference is not as reasonable as it might appear, as the side which is lying is totally unconstrained by facts.
Any debate on whether humanity is substantially changing climate constitutes a failure of the society to use the information it has, of the scientific community to convey it, and of the special interests to restrain vicious antisocial activity on the part of some of its key members.
I do not specify which side is lying on this matter. It won't be hard for you to track down my opinion, but that's beside the point I'm making here. The point is that we are debating facts and not values or policies, which means that democracy is not functioning effectively.
This is occurring in the context of a number of similar failures to come to grips with reality in the absurd noise that passes for public discourse in America, and the irresponsible power games that pass for politics. Climate change probably isn't the most harmful case, yet, though it's competitive...
Re:Wouldn't it be nice? (Score:2)
Well, that's how "conservatives" are - when science gets in the way of their beloved "truths", they cry "Leave the politics out of science!"
Re:Sick of schools brainwashing lil kids with theo (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Sick of schools brainwashing lil kids with theo (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know what stypraphone is, byut Styrofoam has little to do with global warming. The CFCs used to expand styrofoam until the mid-1980s deplete ozone in the stratosphere. This causes an increase in UV radiation at ground level, not global warming.
Recycling reduces the energy consumed in industry. On one extreme, aluminum takes huge amounts of energy to smelt from ore, but relatively little to melt and re-cast. On the other, seperating, transporting, and recycling paper products takes slightly more energy than using new material, BUT reduces deforestation, thus preserving the CO2 absorbtion capabilities of the worlds forests.
Global warming is a global phenomenon, and weather patterns are changing over the whole world. There may be some areas that have lower temperatures, but this does not disprove global warming, since the aggregate temperatures are still higher.
I suggest you go back to school and get brainwashed with grammer, critical thinking, composition, the scientific method, the meaning of a scientific theory and hypothesis, but mostly critical thinking.
Re:Sick of schools brainwashing lil kids with theo (Score:2)
Re:Sick of schools brainwashing lil kids with theo (Score:2, Insightful)
How your comment should look:
Re:Uh, isn't this obvious? (Score:2, Insightful)
Warmer doesn't always mean more vicious storms. Uranus and Jupiter have constant winds over 300 mph (500 km/hr), because they have less energy--there is nothing to slow the winds down or dissipate the storms.
Re:Uh, isn't this obvious? (Score:2)
Hurricanes derive their energy from latent heat via condensation. Nothing to do with how viscous water is.
Re:Uh, isn't this obvious? (Score:2)
Re:Uh, isn't this obvious? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Uh, isn't this obvious? (Score:2)
As for the "surprise," I think they just didn't want to jump to the obvious conclusion that warmer seas cause stronger hurricanes. For example, one theory could have been weaker hurricanes, but more often. Just a guess, though.
Re:6th Grade Science and Bullshit Politics (Score:2)
Because America accounts for 25% of all the world's energy consumption.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:6th Grade Science and Bullshit Politics (Score:2)
Hurricanes happen over warm water (Score:2)
Wikipedia:
"Hurricane aka Tropical Cyclone.
"In meteorology, a tropical cyclone is a storm system with a closed circulation around a center of low pressure, driven by heat energy released as moist air drawn in over warm ocean waters rises and condenses. The name underscores their origin in the tropics and their cyclonic nature. "
Re:Global warming and hurricanes, whatever. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Global warming and hurricanes, whatever. (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is what makes this new study actually news.
Note that NOAA is saying "we haven't seen a long-term increase in hurricane intensity".
This study now says "well, now you have, because there is one."
It should also be noted that this study studied all hurricane regions, not just the Atlantic region.
Re:BRAINDEAD (Score:2)
Re:Normal Cycle (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you sure? From the article...
Yes. They do, in fact know about the cycle.
Many scientists have studied past hurricanes
Yah, sure. That doesn't mean these guys are wrong. Scientists, y'know, discover stuff. And while a link hadn't been found before, it's entirely possible that it has been found now.
Re:Normal Cycle (Score:2, Insightful)
Global warming is going to result in more water in the atmosphere, as increased temperature permits air to hold more water. ( Decrease the temperature, as on the surface of a glass of cold beer, and you will see the atmospheric water condense out on the outside of the glass.)
Water goes through a significant change in volume between the liquid and vapor phase. Enough to explode boilers or vacuum-collapse cans of steam which are capped then cooled.
Couple the volume change o
Re:Warmer oceans linked to stronger hurricanes (Score:2)
Keep your eyes closed all you want, but things are changing for the worse, and if you don't like that, maybe you should stop your "lalala-I-can't-hear-you" and try to change something (a process that necessarily has to start with understanding why there is a problem).
Re:Warmer oceans linked to stronger hurricanes (Score:4, Insightful)
To sum up: the data DO show a change in hurricane patterns. (Of course, if you look at property damage caused by hurricanes, it is skyrocketing mostly because people are dumb and build lots of expensive property by the beach, but that doesn't mean that hurricanes aren't getting worse at the same time as people are building more stuff in their path)